Punjab-Haryana High Court
Government Of Punjab vs Ramesh Kumar Malhotra on 19 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052534
CM-5835-C-2017 in/and 2024:PHHC:052534
RSA-2406-2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(213) CM-5835-C-2017 in/and
RSA-2406-2017
Date of Decision : 19.04.2024
Government of Punjab
...Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Kumar Malhotra
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Rohit Ahuja, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
CM-5835-C-2017
Present application has been filed for seeking condonation of
delay of 51 days in filing the appeal.
Keeping in view the averments made in the application,
which are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed and
delay of 51 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
RSA-2406-2017
1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and
decree of the trial court dated 08.08.2016 by which, the suit filed by the
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052534
CM-5835-C-2017 in/and 2024:PHHC:052534
RSA-2406-2017
appellant-plaintiff was dismissed as well as judgment and decree of the
lower appellate court dated 26.10.2016 by which the judgment and decree
of the trial court dated 08.08.2016 has been upheld.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff argues that the
claim of the State has been dismissed on the ground of delay. Learned
counsel submits that though the allegation of embezzlement upon the
respondent-defendant surface in the year 1999 but the said allegation was
only proved when the respondent-defendant was held guilty in the
criminal case on 08.07.2008, hence, the limitation for recovering of the
embezzled amount will only start from the date of conviction of the
respondent-defendant and not from the date when the said embezzlement
had come to the knowledge of the department after which, the FIR was
registered against the respondent-defendant.
3. It may be noticed that the specific averment on the basis of
which the FIR was registered against the respondent-defendant was that
the embezzlement ₹10,000/- had come to the knowledge of the appellant-
plaintiff in the year 1999. The appellant-plaintiff has not been able to
dispute the same. Once, despite having knowledge of the embezzlement,
the appellant-plaintiff did not initiate any action against the respondent-
defendant upto the year 2011 i.e. for a period of 12 years, it cannot be said
that the period of limitation to seek the recovery of the embezzled amount
will only start from the date of conviction.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052534
CM-5835-C-2017 in/and 2024:PHHC:052534
RSA-2406-2017
4. Even otherwise, the appellant-plaintiff never initiated any
disciplinary proceedings against the respondent-defendant despite the
allegations of embezzlement. Once, no such allegation was made against
the respondent-defendant despite getting an FIR registered in the year so
as to recover the said amount, the judgments and decrees of the courts
below to hold that the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff filed in the year
2011 is time barred, cannot be stated to be perverse in any manner.
5. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff
has been asked to show as to how the judgments and decrees of the courts
below are perverse keeping in view the evidence and facts, which had
come on record, learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has not been
able to show any perversity. In the absence of any perversity, the findings
of facts recorded by both the courts below, which are against the
appellant-plaintiff, needs no interference at the end of this Court in the
present regular second appeal.
6. Dismissed.
April 19th, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
